Category — Reformational

“To me, there nothing more important in a preacher than that he should have a systematic theology, that he should know it and be well grounded in it. This systematic theology, this body of truth which is derived from the Scripture, should always be present as a background and as a controlling influence in his preaching”. — Martyn Lloyd-Jones*

“But when proper words make Scripture ambiguous, we must see in the first place that there is nothing wrong in our punctuation or pronunciation. Accordingly, if, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church, and of which I treated at sufficient length when I was speaking in the first book about things. But if both readings, or all of them (if there are more than two), give a meaning in harmony with the faith, it remains to consult the context, both what goes before and what comes after, to see which interpretation, out of many that offer themselves, it pronounces for and permits to be dovetailed into itself”. — Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, 2:2

Lloyd-Jones is silent in regards to conciliar systematics, but Augustine was not. The silence is not a denial necessarily, just an assertion of the individuality that Lloyd-Jones prized so much. I think Lloyd-Jones would admit that he was dependent on church councils, despite himself.

*Thanks to Mr. Wilson for the quote from Lloyd-Jones. All italics mine.

“The third part of this liberty is that we are not bound before God to any observance of external things which are in themselves indifferent (ἀδιάφορα), but that we are now at full liberty either to use or omit them. The knowledge of this liberty is very necessary to us; where it is wanting our consciences will have no rest, there will be no end of superstition. In the present day many think us absurd in raising a question as to the free eating of flesh, the free use of dress and holidays, and similar frivolous trifles, as they think them; but they are of more importance than is commonly supposed. For when once the conscience is entangled in the net, it enters a long and inextricable labyrinth, from which it is afterwards most difficult to escape. When a man begins to doubt whether it is lawful for him to use linen for sheets, shirts, napkins, and handkerchiefs, he will not long be secure as to hemp, and will at last have doubts as to tow; for he will revolve in his mind whether he cannot sup without napkins, or dispense with handkerchiefs. Should he deem a daintier food unlawful, he will afterwards feel uneasy for using loafbread and common eatables, because he will think that his body might possibly be supported on a still meaner food. If he hesitates as to a more genial wine, he will scarcely drink the worst with a good conscience; at last he will not dare to touch water if more than usually sweet and pure. In fine, he will come to this, that he will deem it criminal to trample on a straw lying in his way. For it is no trivial dispute that is here commenced, the point in debate being, whether the use of this thing or that is in accordance with the divine will, which ought to take precedence of all our acts and counsels. Here some must by despair be hurried into an abyss, while others, despising God and casting off his fear, will not be able to make a way for themselves without ruin. When men are involved in such doubts whatever be the direction in which they turn, every thing they see must offend their conscience.” (Institutes III:19:7).

Thanks friend. “To the law and to the testimony”. — Isaiah 8:20

“The reformer’s doctrine of God contained nothing novel or extraordinary. Like Luther, Barnes and Tyndale held to the traditional concept of God as formalized in such ecumenical statements of the ancient Church as the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. The reformer’s would insist, however, that it was the teaching of Scripture rather than any conciliar decision which constituted the basis for their beliefs. Lack of originality was the necessary consequence of the reformer’s objective. They sought for nothing new, but rather wanted to restore the doctrines of primitive Christianity to the primacy they once enjoyed”. — p. 83, Luther’s English Connection, Dr. James E. Goldrick (Emphasis mine)

They should make it a prerequisite to calling oneself a “Calvinist” that one take a two-year long course on the Institutes of the Christian Religion (the whole thing, not just the “Five Points”), and in the context of the local church. It is funny, but Calvin is so much different than much of the new Calvinist clap-trap that is floating around the web. Much of it does not have the clarity and warmth of Calvin, nor his acumen. I think it is driven by the “Five Points” more than the Institutes, which are not so easily used as a club or a “test pattern” for orthodoxy. It’s like a bunch of high-school bullies are now pastors and “theologians”. They all have big hammers, and everything looks like nail to them. “Hey McFly, are you a four or five pointer?” Whammm! 

The fact is, many of them deny by the practice about half of what Calvin taught: presbyterian rule, paedo-baptism and a host of other things, including paedo-communion. The latter half of the Institutes weigh in on themes that are entirely lost on these guys. But heh, it’s the new cool. 

The confusion between Baptist theology and Calvinism continues. It has become an unargued assumption that Calvin and Credo-baptists are one in their understanding. John Piper and many others are flying this flag. It makes no sense — it is logically impossible.

The reason? Calvin presents a system of theology that is a whole cloth, and the covenant is central to it.As a definitive expression of the covenant, the children of believing parents are included in the sacramental signs and seals. Genesis 17 is a good text to ponder. His system is so closely knitted together, taking away one thread destroys the fabric.

But to take him up as one’s figurehead, all the while denying two-thirds of the Institutes is simply irrational — Presbyterian government is another heavy point that many choose to simply ignore. I am not trying to make any claims to Calvin-ownership, far from it. This is simply a philosophical issue for me. If I disagreed with Marx, I would not call myself a Marxist. If I disagreed with Plato, I would not call myself a Platonist. But, for some strange reason, certain pastors who are at odds with many of the primary teachings of the man still claim him as their own.

If this kind of thing continues, the sheep are going to get more and more confused as time goes on. It seems like these men have little or no concern for the minds of the people, and expect them to fall in line with an irrational leap across an empty chasm. They have done with Calvin what Apple did with Ghandi — turned him into a

Writing on the Holy Spirit, he said:
“…with tender care He supported the confused matter of heaven and earth, until beauty and order were added”. Institutes, Book 1, 148.